Re: [Scheme-reports] Formal Comment: (exit #t) should be the same as (exit)

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:21 PM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

<snip>
I don't support this, because process exit is not like Scheme truth.
In a process exit, there is only one kind of success (0 in Posix/Windows,
"" in Plan 9, 2 in VMS, etc.), whereas there are many kinds of failure.
So #t should map to conventional success, #f should map to some kind of
failure, and any other object should be (as far as possible) passed to
the OS.

Well, I agree, and Plan9 is exactly the reason why I was thinking that, but my thought with following

section 6.3 is for items that cannot be translated "into an appropriate exit value for the operating system."

I guess what I'm driving at is for the standard to explain how to treat items that fail the above instance of

translation into appropriate values, in some standard way.

--
A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: cowan@x]
Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev]
"Your verse would be sweeter http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
If it only had metre
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan." [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports